Zimmerman v. Holling CA2/6

Filed 8/24/20 Zimmerman v. Holling CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

LYNN BEHRENS 2d Civil No. B294254 ZIMMERMAN, (Super. Ct. No. 18CV01746) (Santa Barbara County) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BILL HOLLING et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Bill Holling and RE/Max Gold Coast Realtors (collectively RE/Max defendants) appeal the trial court’s order denying their anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP) motion. (Code Civ. Proc.,1 § 425.16.) We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Lynn Behrens Zimmerman brought a lawsuit against several defendants including Wells Fargo, N.A. and RE/Max

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

defendants. The gravamen of Zimmerman’s complaint was the wrongful foreclosure of her property. She alleged the following causes of action: (1) violation of the Garn-St. Germain Act/RESPA; (2) breach of contract; (3) violation of FDCPA (15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6)); (4) wrongful foreclosure; (5) violation of the California Home Owner’s Bill of Rights; (6) violation of Civil Code section 2934a; (7) cancellation of instruments; (8) false promises/fraud; (9) violation of the Unfair Competition Law; (10) false promises/fraud; and (11) intentional infliction of emotional distress. She alleged the third through ninth causes of action, all of which relate to wrongful foreclosure, “[a]gainst all defendants.” She did not specify the defendants for the other causes of action. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.112 [“each separately stated cause of action . . . must specifically state . . . [¶] . . . (4) The party or parties to whom it is directed”].) With respect to the RE/Max defendants, Zimmerman alleged that Holling “accompanied by two off duty sheriffs hired by him dressed to appear to be on duty . . . threatened, and intimidated [her] and gave her five minutes to get her dogs, her medicine and get out . . . [even though], there was no sheriff’s order to remove her.” She alleges a RE/Max agent “delivered a dumpster” and hired two men to “throw everything they didn’t take themselves, (washer and drier [sic], refrigerator, four TVs, furniture hundreds of possession. 50k in stolen [items)].” RE/Max defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike them from the complaint. They argued the only claims Zimmerman alleged against them were necessarily based on protected activity, i.e., enforcing the unlawful detainer judgment. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, finding the RE/Max defendants did not meet its burden to